-
Misaka wrote on 2011-07-05 02:22
Since the age of man, humans were live with the instinct to survive. This instinct followed the following process :
> Procure a constant source food and water.
> Acquire a shelter in a suitable environment.
> Satisfy one's own personal desires.
This instinct in particular was what gave birth to what is known as society today. Humans work together towards a common goal. This common goal is something that is a desired result among many people, thus falls in the category of fulfilling personal desires. Over time as they continued to work together and form communities, there would naturally be conflicts. Conflicts involving what they desires.
Take for example, person A and person B. Person A enjoys playing soccer while person B enjoys playing Basketball. They get into an argument over which sport is better, and then a majority of their friends say that Basketball is better while proceeding to make fun of Person A for liking Soccer. The main point of what I'm saying in this is that in a society, it's the majority vote that decides what is right and wrong, what you should and should not do. But is it really wrong of them to not come to agreement with the majority?
Is a shut-in from Japan who stays indoors and loves 2-D girls more than 3-D girls truly worth calling despicable? That is simply how he deals with life, how he fulfills his own desires. While the majority would look down on such a person, the person himself would protest in that it is how he enjoys his own life. So to that I suggest, is anybody right in saying someone is enjoying their life in the wrong way?
What I'm trying to say here is that everyone in life has their own way of enjoying it. Shut-ins enjoy life by staying indoors on the internet all day. Serial killers enjoy life by killing others. Sluts enjoy life by engaging in sexual intercourse. While there is a lot more to life than what any of those three are enjoying, the fact is that they are enjoying life through what they feel is right despite society calling it wrong. Are we, as members of society, correct at all in saying that they should not be pleasuring their lives in such a way when they may or may not be able to help it? When everyone is entitled to their own way of living their lives, yet we take away such freedoms by placing labels on what is right and wrong?
You tell me.
-
Mrlucky77 wrote on 2011-07-05 02:26
Well, murderers may get personal fulfillment from killing people, and I guess what is "wrong" is denying or blocking someone's way to be able to fulfill one of those three points.
-
Misaka wrote on 2011-07-05 02:29
Well I suppose this is the proper situation to use the term, "Society contradicts itself."
-
Yoorah wrote on 2011-07-05 02:34
Civilization was built by showing compassion for people who would otherwise be considered strangers, and compromise, in addition to what you mentioned. But when someone engages in activity that completely reverses progress.. such as violence, they are in the wrong.
-
Misaka wrote on 2011-07-05 02:37
But for example, is it wrong of me to want to incite violence? Am I not fulfilling my desires successfully by killing people? Is it not creating a satisfactory result that fulfills my own desires? Am I as an individual wrong, and not actually fulfilling my desires by killing somebody by the definition of a majority who believe I am wrong?
-
Joker wrote on 2011-07-05 02:43
I look at it this way all for we know if society took a different turn ... anywhere... say... the german revolution... and nazi'ism anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes would be considered evil... and would have to die... if a time like that arose.. it would be conisdered normal or at least down the line...
what misaka said is correct
Morality in itself is a joke because whatever people in the largest groups/ majoriity is considered right.
look at the straight vs gay standard... if 95% of the world was gay then straight would be a minority and for all you know being straight* might be evil or BAD as much as people bash being gay today.
just my 2 cents
-
Armi wrote on 2011-07-05 02:47
If 95% of the world were composed of homosexuals, the human race would cease to exist, just sayian; and you must mean minority not majority.
-
Mama wrote on 2011-07-05 05:26
Your last paragraph just made me think of antisocial personality disorder, honestly. Are psycopaths and sociopaths wrong in what they do? They certainly are more than happy breaking social norms and manipulating people to satisfy their own needs and desires, be it through lying, murder, rape (and any other thing frowned on society-wise) and certainly doesn't go around looking to help.
In my eyes, there is very little objective right or wrong, but there is reasonings. Moral reasonings. The level on which this functions on makes or breaks an individual, and influences society as a whole.
Moreover, like other people have mentioned in this thread, the same morals people grow into are prescriptive. Good rationale is also dependant on being independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. (this is against your third point..) When we allow people to become biased, be it through emotions or their own interests, irrational behaviour arises, which accounts for a large amount of suffering. On that end, I believe people should be judged by the sound rationality of their choices, rather than what is popular or accepted, because that sort of logic tends to be fallacious. The attitude towards homosexuality in the past is an example.
Ehh, I hope I made sense. tl;dr:
rationality (not rationalization, oh lordy) to me is more important than people's ideas of right and wrong; being inward with your motivation instead of outward is a good recipe for unhappiness.
just do what makes you happy. You'd need to be some sort of zen buddhist master to live a life of pure, unselfish, and unadulterated bliss though.
-
Sayoko wrote on 2011-07-05 21:38
The "winners" are right and "losers" are wrong, at least according to history textbooks.
If the Axis won WWII, the US would be the bad guys.
If the South won the Civil War, slavery might still be justified.
If 1% in a society followed Islam and 99% followed Christianity, Christianity is right and Islam is wrong. If 99% followed Islam and 1% followed Christianity, Islam is the way and Christianity is wrong.
-
Chiyuri wrote on 2011-07-05 23:42
My label of right and wrong would be "Accepteble and wrong"
If something in not "wrong" than by default it is accepteble.
Now what I define as the main root of "wrong" is the act of going against other people's universal rights. Anything outside of that is "accepteble"
-
TA wrote on 2011-07-06 14:10
There is no good or bad in nature. There is what is and what is not.
That is the truth of things.
-
ajec wrote on 2011-07-07 05:41
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Well done in condensing a very complex and nuanced subject on human culture and our society. However I disagree on one point, or should I say, I wish to add to your claim that our society is buildupon the instinct of “satisfying one's personal desires.†If one believes that statement is true, then humans are no different than any typical animals; we eat to stay alive like cats, we find shelter or built shelters like bears, we engage in sexual intercourse for pleasure like birds, etc. Of course biologically speaking we are consider animals like our animal friends, however in terms of developing culturally, socially, and technologically humans are different from any types of animals and I believe that it is not the instinct or the drive to “satisfy one's personal desires†but the human's ability to reflect and deliberate why we choose to satisfy our desire or why we made such decisions in the first place, thus leading to societies deciding and defining why certain way of life is the correct way or the wrong way.
Taking your example of serial killers enjoying life through killing others. I believe a all human societies through reflecting ,through religion [Christianity] or philosophy [Confucianism], on our choices and ways of attaining pleasure has defined serial killers or murderers in general to be a “wrong†since their enjoyment of life is gained through the harm of others therefore if a majority through time and space has defined this certain act to be in the wrong, the majority here is obviously “right†in labelling murder as “wrong.â€
[NOTE: If someone can find one society believing murder is culturally and morally acceptable please do inform me. Of course we have to be in agreement what exactly is defined as a “societyâ€, furthermore what exactly does murder mean in a society.( lol @ Casey Anthony's trial)]
Regarding the posts made by others wherein the majority always ends up defining the “right†way of enjoying (do you really mean enjoying? I'm going to infer it also means way of living since other posts has extrapolated enjoyment to a homosexual lifestyle.) life, I believe that is generally true since it would be illogical to base lifestyle choices on a group of minority or even a single person and imposed it on the rest (of the majority).
However how does one explain the change of opinions in the majority where once it was consider “wrong†but now “right?â€
Taking the example of segregation of blacks and whites in the United States before the 1960s there is obviously a majority of citizens that believe whites and blacks should be separated, however it obviously changed. Another instance is the general belief in that before 1970s that women should marry, stay at home, and have babies instead of pursuing a career, now there is clearly has been a paradigm shift.
In conclusion, all I can say that the societal norm of what is morally acceptable or what is “right and wrong†changes over time and varies across space. So today's “wrongâ€, perhaps a homosexual lifestyle or murder, might likely become tomorrow's “right.â€
[/FONT]
Hope my block of text made sense.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-07-09 22:53
No, the fundamental difference is that we are instinctively very social. That's what society is based on. It might be expanded upon by philosophical contemplation, but did not grow out of it.
A toddler that sees you reaching for something you can't reach and gives it to you just so probably didn't do it out of philosophical contemplation.
As far as right or wrong goes, that completely depends upon the personal viewpoint, and de Sade's idea of what is "right" and what is "wrong" is as valid (or invalid) as that of Platon. Right or wrong are judgemental concepts, and therefore necessarily subjective and biased.
What is not biased, however, or at least severely reduced so, is the question of advantageous versus disadvantageous (depending on the level of social organisation this is applied to). It is objectively true that murder and arson are disadvantageous more than advantageous in most cases, regardless of organisational level: the community will suffer from the disorder and cost arising from the grief and destroyed goods, as well as the individuals immediately involved. It therefore stands to reason that, in an order whose aim is the advantage of society, should be discouraged.
So, if you want to find out whether someone is truly "right" or "wrong" and assume that the advancement of society is the ultimate goal*, however encompassing this concept of society might be, this is a very good way to find out.
It can get very complicated in cases where several roughly equal parties are competing for an advantage over the other, but it's a good basis for the most fundamental moral problems, and with a bit of elaboration will be probably be useful for determining the most optimal course of action in these cases**, but I'm currently still working on that.
*[SIZE="1"]Sadly it is not logically possible to create ethical models without at least one maxim, such as e.g. this. You are welcome to try it out yourself.[/SIZE]
**[SIZE="1"]Such as arson or killing to intimidate a certain party and advance a particular goal, like in most revolutions.[/SIZE]
-
Phanterz wrote on 2011-07-10 11:59
Morality completely an illusion. No other biological life forms have morals, they only do things to their own benefit. In reality everything is dictated by what the majority wants, and you can bet that no one gives a crap about "morals" when writing laws or other things.
In fact, most people probably think "crime" is wrong because they were told so. Not from their own opinion. With criminal actions, there are more victims than criminals, so it's illegal. There isn't any other reason for it.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-07-10 14:38
Quote from Phanterz;506734:
No other biological life forms have morals, they only do things to their own benefit.
Unbacked speculation. There are a few species that appear to have an idea of what is good or wrong in the context of the group, or at least have a set of rules on how to behave in the group.
Consider lions, chimpanzees, prairie dogs, wolves, humpback wales, there are tons in the animal kingdom who have, albeit sometimes primitive, verifiable rules of conduct that go beyond "that looks nice, I'm gonna take it now".
Humans aren't anything special in this regard. They have a certain group they consider themselves belonging to and for whom they work (
doubtlessly because it was a fundamental necessity for individual survival, and most people who didn't do it died a gruesome lonesome death in the jaws of a smilodon), and to the rest they are at best neutral. Make no mistake, there is no difference between humans going to war and rival packs of wolves fighting for territory. There is as well no difference between cuddling humans and grooming chimpanzees. We're all animals, we all have morals.
That being said, morality is not "illusory" merely because it is an abstract concept. It does serve its purpose in nature, and has evolved as a part of nature. It is as real as the drive to procreate or eat.